SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Century Mining Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John McCarthy who wrote (192)8/17/2006 7:23:43 PM
From: calgarylady  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 545
 
Here's what I get from the PR.

Based on production at the Sigma Mine in the first half of this year and the delays in the delivery of the haul trucks, the Company has made downward revisions to its production estimates.

It looks like they have just based on the facts and haven't taken into account the new trucks. To me it looks like everything is underestimated for q3 and q4 and also for 2007 and 2008 or are grades not going to be as good? Your totals are right and based on q1 and q2 if nothing had changed then I can see them using those totals for the second half of the year but with 4 new trucks I would hope totals are going to be higher. Its seems funny that production isn't changing. I would think 2007 estimate s/b at least 100,000 oz. for Sigma. You are right, it doesn't look like there would have been much production without delivery the trucks, if any.

The projected cash cost for 2006 is US$385 per ounce of gold. The Company cautions readers that production and cost estimates are forward-looking statements and there can be no assurance that these estimates will be achieved.

With the costs higher in q2 I don't know if they will reach those production cost numbers unless q3 and q4 are a lot better.

I agree that Peggy will have a lot of questions to answer tomorrow but I am sure she will clear a lot of this up. Seems everything is underestimated.